The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: ?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?  (Read 15275 times)

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #25 on: 11/09/2010 15:31:45 »
There is one other aspect of GM which concerns me. It is not only being used to control plant disease and insect attack, it is also being used to increase the yield of the crop.

Most herbicides work by boosting the growth rate of the plant they are applied to. The plant grows at such a rate, that the cell walls rupture and the plant dies.

Could it be that in genetically enhancing a plant to produce a greater yield than the plant would ordinarily produce could lead to a similar scenario? We have already hybridised plants to increase their yield and continue to use high concentration fertilisers to further enhance yield. If GM were to take the yield beyond the limits that a plant can sustain, could we find that the plants will 'burn out' before they produce anything at all?

Once again, in such a case, this may not become evident until it is too late for reversal of the modification to be effective, or even possible.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #26 on: 11/09/2010 21:21:03 »
There are several reasons to why I don't like the markets 'short term profits' to decide gene modification. <- And that's one of them ... Short term profits ..

One of their own internal reports that they were forced to release by German courts and Greenpeace states this " The aforesaid rat feeding study found "significant" effects in theblood and organs of the rats fed on the GM maize MON863. A number of scientists across Europe who have already seen the study expressed concerns about the health and safety implications of this GM corn. Monsanto does not put in question that there were significant health effects in the rats, but claims that these were not caused by the GMmaize. But according to the opinion of several experts the explanations of Monsanto are not sufficient to put down recent concerns." from 2005.

Another problem is that they create some crops that can't be naturally fertilized, forcing those that wants the resistance and higher yield back to buy new seeds every year, which for many third world farmers creates an evil circle costing them as much as they win from it, also short-cutting nature in the process.

Biotech Giant Monsanto Revises Pledge on ’Suicide Seeds’ 

The problem is also how to control that fertilize able GM crops won't spread before being extensively tested, so in a way one could say that no matter what they do, they will us a wrong. :). In older day when farmers introduced changes they used natures own way, mixing what already existed by grafting branches from one tree to another for example. I don't consider that to be at the same level as the gene-modification we sees in modern industry. There they go down on the microscopic level lifting in genes and 'wait and see.'. And the 'wait and see' cycle for a commercial company is extremely short, and depending on the profits also often half-blind as we can see above. In short, they see what they want to see.
==

But I agree with much of what you're saying Martin, it's hell on wheels trying to stop 'progress'. In some ways GM might become as much of a problem as atomic energy, only more widespread. This planet stand in front of a food shortage in the nearest fifty years as I understands it, assuming that the population continues its growth. So we will probably use GM more and more as necessity is the mother of invention. Let's just hope the price is acceptable.
« Last Edit: 11/09/2010 21:33:27 by yor_on »
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #27 on: 13/09/2010 00:18:07 »
Quote
GM medicine 'risks the lives of diabetics'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/may/07/antonybarnett.theobserver
   

GM medicine also saved the lives of everyone who has been diabetic.

It is a shame Science hasn't found a way for us not to get diabetes! Medicine is driven by $$$$$$$

Actually my father died due to insulin given by a doctor who didn't take into account his heart condition.
Too Much Insulin a Bad Thing for the Heart? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100419233109.htm
Novel Diabetes Hope Comes from Chinese Herbs http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100817211054.htm
Not All Cells Respond The Same Way To Insulin http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080501180314.htm

It has been discovered that people with diabetes develop metabolic inflammation and learning how to eat right (healthy food)is the answer. So once science has found the effective compounds (in food) that will trigger the gene to regulate metabolism diabetics can eat this instead of taking medication. Surely we don't have to create new (GM)food to do this!

In my opinion it is like changing the genes in food concerned with one aspect but creating many more problems and not tested prior to release that is the problem. Once released there is no turning back!

Isn't it a shame that we have destroyed our natural source of medicine ( rainforests and other vegetation's lost forever) and we have to do this (humanly manipulate plants and animals genome) to find what we have lost before we have identified it (our earth's natural antidotes).

WE know the problems faced by farmers who fed their cattle GM food but (unable to reproduce etc etc)we still don't know the problems associated with the health of the people who eat cattle fed on GM food or the problems associated with humans eating it directly. As we know bacteria and virus grows and adapts so if we change our genes to cope with the virus and it adapts what do we do then?

Science finds a good reason to genetically modify a food source only later to find it has created another problem. [food is medicine too - I have to have it to survive, it makes my body operate]. Plants do not carry viruses that effect people but if science should add human genes then what?

And when is science going to find a way to control cross contamination??????????

First Evidence of Genetically Modified Plants in the Wild, Scientists Report
ScienceDaily (Aug. 6, 2010) — Scientists currently performing field research in North Dakota have discovered the first evidence of established populations of genetically modified plants in the wild.

This is actually incorrect we have known prior to Aug 6Th 2010 that GM food crops pollinate natural food crops and we have proof world wide.

Studies on Nutrients, Gene Expression Could Lead to Tailored Diets for Disease Prevention
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100305112159.htm
America's Increasing Food Waste Is Laying Waste to the Environment
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091124204314.htm

Considering all the waste of food throuhgout the world, is genetically modifiying it going to feed the hungry?

So why alter our food?
« Last Edit: 13/09/2010 00:34:08 by echochartruse »
 

Offline MartinTheK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 135
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #28 on: 13/09/2010 08:25:06 »
Oh Good! I call that strong work.

It just remains for you to come on over and explain that to the US Congress. Shouldn't take long.

I'll see what I can do to introduce you to my local House Member. He's a little preoccupied right now what with blaming Mr. Obama because it hasn't rained enough. Maybe you could phone up Mr. Limbaugh and present your arguments to him.

It should go well
 

Offline Variola

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1063
  • Everyone should beware of The Pox...
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #29 on: 13/09/2010 13:26:39 »
Quote
It is a shame Science hasn't found a way for us not to get diabetes! Medicine is driven by $$$$$$$
 

Science has found many ways to prevent or decrease the risk of Diabetes type II, fighting an auto-immune disorder is another matter.

Actually research is driven by curiosity as much as anything else, contrary to popular belief research is not a glamorous highly paid job.
The pharmaceutical companies are driven by money, that is true, but they are a business just like any other, not a charity. They also have to pay for the research into medicines in the first place.
That still does not exclude the fact the GMing bacteria created insulin in the first place, and many people have survived because of it.

As for matching food to genes, that is a long long way off. Lots of things in science have the potential, but that does not mean we are near to having them happen.
 

Offline MartinTheK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 135
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #30 on: 13/09/2010 15:49:30 »
Actually science (Medical Anthropology) has shown how to not get Diabetes II.

Pima Indians living in California eating an American diet and living like Americans have rampant incidence of Diabetes II.

Pima indians living 199 miles away living traditionally and eating traditional diets very rarely suffer from the disease.

Sitting around on your ass watching TV and eating snickers bars is all it takes.
« Last Edit: 13/09/2010 15:53:52 by MartinTheK »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #31 on: 13/09/2010 21:30:10 »
is all it takes.

Hmmmm. That easy, eh? You're probably a svelte 160 pounds then.

How do you manage to do it?
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #32 on: 13/09/2010 22:30:29 »
Quote
Actually science (Medical Anthropology) has shown how to not get Diabetes II.
Up to a point, lord copper.
It's certainly shown, in no uncertain terms, that sitting on your behind and eating too much sugar will radically increase your risk of developing type II diabetes at a young age.
On the other hand, it turns out that if you're genetically unlucky so will doing considerable physical labour on a farm and as a gardener over a period of 40-odd years, eating a diet based on vegetables, fruit, and amounts of meat which by western standards are the modest side of moderate. My not-exactly-father-in-law has type II diabetes, and doesn't control it with insulin because he's given up eating readily accessible carbs such as, say, potatoes (don't even ask about white flour or cake..). But the characterisation as diabetes II as a disease affecting only fat, indolent people is really glibness not worthy of an RN (as I believe you've told us elsewhere that you are)
Further, diabetes II is a disease of old age. Just because it is possible to bring about the onset of diabetes in your 30s (or even younger) by eating a disastrously poor diet doesn't mean that people who ate according to the depression as children in the '30s, were rationed as young adults in the '40s and '50s, and were slim and active well into their 80s don't also die with (tho' not necessarily of) diabetes (I can think of two old ladies who would fit the bill, one of whom was my great aunt).
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #33 on: 13/09/2010 22:53:16 »
Oh, and... insulin.

For clarity:

Type I diabetes - condition which results from the pancreas having ceased to make (sufficient) insulin. Caused by infection or autoimmune damage to the pancreas. Treated by administration of insulin derived from bacteria.

Type II diabetes - condition which results from insulin receptors becoming less sensitive (often as a result of years of sharp peaks in blood sugar levels, which leads to very high insulin production - how sharp and frequent these peaks have to be seems to have a genetic link, since diabetes II runs in families and is more prevalent in some populations than others), leading to the pancreas making more and more insulin to bring down high blood sugar.
The pancreas may eventually be damaged by this cycle and stop making insulin. At which point treatment with extra insulin may be required.

People with type I diabetes aren't going to be suddenly cured by herbal remedies, not even the sort with a real pharmacological effect (tho' some promising results with stem cell work and auto-transplant seems to be in the pipeline). They really do need that insulin to stay alive. Modern treatments of diabetes are amazing - 15-20 years ago, young people diagnosed with diabetes might have expected to be in a wheelchair  in their 40s, 40 years ago, they weren't expected to live past 30. Diabetes was life-limiting. Those same young diabetics, now in their 30s, provided they've been smart in the interim (and not gone totally off the rails and stopped doing their treatment properly), are doing just fine. The improvement's mostly due to vastly better testing, and thus tighter controls, on blood sugar levels (testing blood rather than urine, and insulin pumps which deliver insulin gradually at a rate which can be adjusted for the results of the blood testing. But without the cultured insulin to inject, these people wouldn't stand a chance.

People with type II diabetes will respond to all sorts of different treatments. The ones with the necessary willpower may be able to control their condition by diet, exercise and determination. Others can't, either because it hasn't been caught until it's already done them too much damage, or because they lack the necessary self belief, or support from family and friends (or whatever it is that it takes).

It really doesn't do to confuse the two conditions, they have very little in common.

It also doesn't do to elide GM bacteria used to produce useful molecules with GM plants. The bacteria don't have to be able to survive in the big wide world, so great care is taken to ensure that they can't - the ones used are typically unable to produce at least one vital amino acid, so if they get out of the vat they die off very quickly, and there are other safeguards in place.
Of course, there is always the risk that, as any benign technology, it might be taken and exploited by unscrupulous individuals, and that might lead to something nasty getting out. But not by anyone operating legally (well, not in the west, anyhow). And since Pandora's box is now open and the technology exists, we might as well make use of it to improve/save lives.

GM plants are a more complicated debate. Their entry into the food chain is no more risky to human health than that of any given food additive, and they're being invented all the time.
On the other hand if they're selected to be particularly resilient they could quite easily have damaging effects on the eco-systems they're introduced into. I suspect grey squirrels and cane toads are the relevant comparators.

(Sorry, this should really have been two posts, but one sort-of ran into the other..)
« Last Edit: 13/09/2010 23:19:19 by rosy »
 

Offline MartinTheK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 135
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #34 on: 14/09/2010 02:44:14 »
"But the characterisation as diabetes II as a disease affecting only fat, indolent people is really glibness not worthy of an RN (as I believe you've told us elsewhere that you are)"

I reviewed my post just now and I did specify Diabetes II in my post. But thanks for showing us all that you know about Diabetes I. I'm impressed.

I am not only an RN but a member of the American Association of Diabetes Educators young feller me lad. I have lot's of clinical experience in my 40 year career. Thank you for your informative and interesting little monograph on the subject.

As a short post (which people may actually read) I restricted myself to a concise statement of the facts. If you want to astronomically increase your risk of developing Type II Diabetes then sit around and eat the wrong foods. That is why we have suddenly begun to see children with frank Type II Diabetes where it was once unheard of.

Obviously, age (as is ethnicity) is also a factor in developing this disease - the point is that you can give yourself the body of a sick old person if you abuse your diet and don't get enough exercise.

But who am I - simple country RN that I am - to tell you how to live your life? I've made a pretty good income out of people who say they know much more about Diabetes (both types I & II) than I do. Knock yourself out, Tiger. Diabetes is becoming a growth industry and we can use the work.



 

Offline MartinTheK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 135
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #35 on: 14/09/2010 06:51:37 »
and furthermore...

Diabetes Type II (Diabetes Type I is an entirely different disease of an entirely different etiology) in similarity to other "lifestyle" diseases has a number of factors which lead to its onset. Some of these we can't control ( family history, age and ethnicity) but others which we can most definitely control - our diet and amount of exercise.

My clinical experience is that it is difficult enough to motivate people who are obviously at risk for developing the disease to adopt a healthy lifestyle. I am always sorry to see somebody chip in with some erudite sounding statements that confuse the issue and hinder people who are at risk from properly understanding how to limit their risk of this very serious disease.

And finally..

I fail to see what this has to do with the subject at hand which is genetic manipulation of food. It seems to me that such an extensive and tangential exposition ought to have its own thread.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #36 on: 14/09/2010 12:33:16 »
Actually it is all in our genes. But having the genes doesn't actually mean you will have the disease (whatever disease) that depends on your lifestyle and environment and whether your a couch potatoe also I suppose.

A study this week found that women on diets well-matched to their genes, as defined by the test, lost roughly five times more weight than those on mismatched diets.

Fine-Tuning Drugs to Match Our Genes - What Are the Implications for Health Care Costs and Treatments? http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/050400.htm

Gene Variation Be Used in Predicting Drug Response
Quote
Knowing one's genetic code will allow a person to make adequate lifestyle and environmental changes at an early age so as to avoid or lessen the severity of a genetic disease. Likewise, advance knowledge of a particular disease susceptibility will allow careful monitoring, and treatments can be introduced at the most appropriate stage to maximize their therapy.

March 2010 Studies on Nutrients, Gene Expression Could Lead to Tailored Diets for Disease Prevention
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100305112159.htm
Quote
"Nutrigenomics involves tailoring diets to someone's genetic makeup," said Koushik Adhikari, K-State assistant professor of sensory analysis. "I speculate that in five to 10 years, you would go to a genetic counselor or a physician who could help you understand your genetic makeup, and then a nutritional professional could customize your diet accordingly."
Sounds simple enough to me as long as they don't start shuffling food genes and lose the basics.

 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #37 on: 14/09/2010 13:49:19 »
Martin - yes, I know you specified diabetes II in your post. My objection to your post was that it states that we know "how not to get diabetes II". We don't. We know how to hugely increase our chances of eventually getting the disease, and how to accelerate its onset... by, as you say, prematurely aging our bodies by ill-treatment (and I said as much, in my post, before I said anything else).
I realise, as you lay out in your subsequent post, that there is the countervailing argument that it is necessary to motivate people to alter those risk factors that are within their control. But conversly there is a risk, certainly I've seen this amongst some people I've spoken to, that people (especially young-ish, fit-ish people, which is to say certain of my peers) will regard diabetes II as a disease that only affects sugar-scoffing slugs and that as such (1) they are not at risk even if they appear to be running mainly on coca-cola and (2) anyone who is affected by diabetes II must be a fat slug who doesn't look after themselves properly.

My second post was not intented, obviously, to inform you. I would have thought you could have worked that out for yourself... but the discussion of diabetes arises because someone raised the issue of the genetically modified bacteria used to produce insulin, and echochartreuse' post appeared to imply that (s)he considered insulin to be an unnecessary and harmful mode of treatment, and so it seemed to me relvant to make the explicit distinction between diabetes I and II to explain the importantce of insulin (derived from GMOs) to treat the former.

Incidentally, I'm aware that you were setting out to patronise and belittle me, and who knows.. perhaps by your own lights you were correct to do so, but "young feller me lad" is not only obnoxious, it's also quite impressively inappropriate given that you could probably have worked out from my name that I'm a woman and even if you couldn't you could certainly have tried for a gender-neutral alternative. "Young whippersnapper" has much the same ring to it, don't you think, without having to make stupid (wrong) assumptions about my sex?
« Last Edit: 14/09/2010 13:55:30 by rosy »
 

Offline MartinTheK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 135
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #38 on: 14/09/2010 20:14:11 »
"without having to make stupid (wrong) assumptions about my sex?"

Bozhemoi! Such a faux pas! I humbly (most humbly) beg your pardon, Madam!

The femininity of British women, I must confess, is frequently too subtle for a simple provincial soul like me to detect on these pages. Had I the keen acuity to detect it I would never have used "young feller me lad" ln favor of "Little Missy".

 There is an unwritten clause in the Nightingale oath (ever since Scutari) that calls upon us to give the razz to anybody who makes a left handed comment about our professional acumen. If I was mistaken and you weren't doing that..then go in peace.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #39 on: 14/09/2010 20:59:15 »
Way to go Martin. I think that's two out of three. (Gender and Nationality.)

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=33927.msg322992#msg322992
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #40 on: 15/09/2010 01:19:07 »

My second post was not intented, obviously, to inform you. I would have thought you could have worked that out for yourself... but the discussion of diabetes arises because someone raised the issue of the genetically modified bacteria used to produce insulin, and echochartreuse' post appeared to imply that (s)he considered insulin to be an unnecessary and harmful mode of treatment, and so it seemed to me relevant to make the explicit distinction between diabetes I and II to explain the importance of insulin (derived from GMOs) to treat the former.

All I can say is, please don't assume. When you assume they are your thoughts not mine.

What I am saying is that we have manufactured a drug called insulin that may or may not be able to be found naturally, (i don't know without asking).
But we manufacture it or engineer it genetically and I didn't know that until this post.
This drug has helped many and it has caused some others death, as it did both for my father.
Just recently within the last decade they have discovered that it can cause stroke. Also today it has been broadcasted that some common pain killers can cause stroke. My father died decades ago and before than many others probably died for the same reason. Because it hadn't been trialed intensively enough prior to releasing.

That is my point.

All this genetic engineering and manipulation is done without knowing long term consequences.
Once the change is out there we can not turn back. And the general public has no say. It appears to be an environmental crime if things go wrong, A dictatorship! We have no idea if we are eating GM food as the label doesn't have to mention it.
what do you think?

« Last Edit: 15/09/2010 05:56:55 by echochartruse »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #41 on: 16/09/2010 04:16:19 »
My view, for what is worth, is that Rosy wrote a nice article without attacking anyone specifically, I learnt some new stuff from it, or old as it might be :) But, I have this feeling that our Martin may walk somewhat of in Mark Twains foot-steeps here, although, of a slightly more sarcastic bent :)

Nobody is out to kill anyone here I think.
And now I go under my table again :)
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #42 on: 20/09/2010 09:32:39 »
Our Food and the way it is grown, transported and prepared has changed in the last 80yrs. food is far more processed now. Some countries entirely depending on food being transported in. Now we also have GM food which is untested and now we found it growing "naturally" in the wild.

We eat GM food without being told that we are. There is no label requirements for GM food. (here in Aust.)

Even if we decided to grow our own veggies in our home, they would probably be modified.

Quote from:  author Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 0XR. 'Recent(2002)Evidence Confirms Risks of Horizontal Gene Transfer.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FSAopenmeeting.php   
Similarly, I was not surprised by the research results released earlier this year by the Food Standards Agency [12], indicating that transgenic DNA from GM soya flour, eaten in a single hamburger and milk shake meal, was found transferred to the bacteria in the gut contents from the colostomy bags of human volunteers.

What I found unacceptable was the way the Agency dismissed the findings and downplayed the risks. The comments, "it is extremely unlikely that genes from genetically modified (GM) food can end up in bacteria in the gut of people who eat them", and "the findings had been assessed by several Government experts who had ruled that humans were not at risk", are seriously misleading.

If you search GM reports it is difficult to find anything good said about GM food. Can anyone find something good about GM food? I would like to see it.

I think there is a lot to read about the dangers of GM food, that is not the problem. The problem seems to be, If we know about the dangers why are we doing it?
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #43 on: 20/09/2010 09:49:26 »
presently humans don't get viruses from fruit and veggies but think what might happen if we use human genes transfered to our fruit and veggies.

Quote from:  author
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100826104133.htm
Toward Safer Foods for Human Consumption With Anthrax Protection
ScienceDaily (Aug. 26, 2010) — An antibacterial enzyme found in human tears and other body fluids could be applied to certain foods for protection against intentional contamination with anthrax, scientists reported in Boston, Massachusetts on August 26 at the 240th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS).

 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #44 on: 20/09/2010 10:09:27 »
Are we rather drifting off topic here? The question was (and I think still is) "How dangerous genetically modify food and why no news about it?"

My concerns are that GM crops have not been, and probably cannot be, fully evaluated for their effect on non-GM crops and wild plants, the many and varied fungi and insects which depend on them, the knock on effect of tampering with the life cycle of those fungi and insects and other plants they utilise now or might migrate to. The fact that GM could be impossible to reverse and that we cannot create a boundary to contain GM.

Are we, if you'll pardon the phrase, 'playing God'?

Yes, we have hybridised plants, but this can only work within certain biological limits. GM goes beyond those biological limits, effectively creating plants which would never evolve in nature and which have no place in the natural diversity.

Just suppose that in destroying crop fungi, we also destroy the fungi which attacks the Colorado Beetle. Result, increased attack on potato crops. So we create a GM potato which destroys the Colorado Beetle. Result, the frogs and birds which feed on them must find new prey, perhaps bees. Now we have problem with crop pollination.

I find it worrying that GM appears to be a Hitleresque 'Final Solution' to crop pests which can and does have effects far beyond the problem they are supposed to alleviate, causing more problems elsewhere.


Apologies to echochartruse, you seem to have got back to the main topic while I was buggering around!
« Last Edit: 20/09/2010 10:13:14 by Don_1 »
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #45 on: 21/09/2010 00:03:09 »
Don_1

I am glad your back on topic here.

GM in my opinion is a bandaid placed on a sore that needs amputation.
today I read that chickens will be modified to survive better in small cages for food production.

I agree with your statement "Hitleresque 'Final Solution'"
Why is our governments allowing this poisoning of the world's food supply?

Profit driven? destroy our natural food supply, surely there is more to it than the $$$$.

At an estimate I would say at least 80% of the world's population does not want to eat GM food.

What can we do about it? It is in our food, our cleaners, makeup, animals, etc and we aren't told the consequences because it hasn't been tested thoroughly. No labeling. Now our local government are adding fluride to our water supply. Didn't Hitler use fluoride to kill people?

(tongue in cheek) Maybe once we are full of GM food and every living thing on this planet is GM then we will be ripe for the alien's picking. Just the way they like.

Accidental release of GM fish into the wild. accidental release of this and that, you hear about it all the time. Isn't these mistakes enough to halt GModification. If I released chemicals into the river I would be jailed. What gives Shell and Monsanto immunity?

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/genetically-modified-foods-pose-huge-health-risk

https://secure.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cisti/journals/rp/rppdf/f01-064.pdf

50 HARMFUL EFFECTS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) FOODS
http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful.
« Last Edit: 21/09/2010 00:06:43 by echochartruse »
 

Offline Joe L. Ogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #46 on: 21/09/2010 00:06:37 »
What, specifically, is the danger of GMF?  Thanks for comments. Joe L. Ogan 
« Last Edit: 21/09/2010 15:07:16 by Joe L. Ogan »
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #47 on: 21/09/2010 00:46:33 »
Joe, You ask for a long post.

Read Monsanto's 5 paragraphs on why it is good, then read the other millions of site why it is bad
http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=3422
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #48 on: 21/09/2010 13:05:59 »
What, specifically, is the danger of GMF?  Thanks for comments.  Thanks for comments.  Joe L. Ogan 

That really is the whole problem, as I see it. We just don't know. Problems caused by GM may not manifest themselves for many generations. But we do know that we have created problems through our interference with nature on many occasions in the past.

The introduction of non native species has proved to be a Pandora's Box. Grey Squirrels, Rabbits, Dingos, Rats, Goats, Starlings and other animals have been seen to have, sometimes, catastrophic effects on native species. The once pristine Galapagos Islands are an excellent example. But the introduction of non native plant species can have much wider implications. The introduction of Japanese Knotweed in the late 19th. C to the UK is a prime example. It is only in recent years that this introduction has been seen to have such an immense effect on the native plant life. What yet remains to be fully understood is the effect it may have on insects and other animals deprived of their natural habitat and food source.

What then could the effect of a species not just non native to the particular region, but not even a natural native species to the planet?

Plants and animals have evolved together. They have, by and large, managed to maintain an equilibrium. GM crops are designed to be outside of that equilibrium and therefore must upset the balance of nature.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #49 on: 22/09/2010 00:56:34 »
Currently GM food is catorgorised 'Safe' although there has only been 1, yes one study on GM food and its effect on humans.

The study found that the gene from GM Soy is transfered into human gut bacteria where it stays.
Yes this GM gene is part of us forever. No study has been carried out to find what effects, long term effects this has on humans.

There has been scientific studies on farm animals, mice, etc which has clearly shown that adverse effect is previlent when fed GM food. Reproductive problems are featured, damage to sperm cells, smaller offspring, infertility, fatality.

Yes animal studies have been done but no study on human consumption of eating directly GM foods or humans eating animals and plants that are GM modifide.

Apparently thousands of farm workers who harvest BT-modified cotton in India are complaining of rashes all over their bodies. Animals have dies within a day or two of eating BT modified cotton after harvest.

Don't think you haven't eaten GM food. Becasue the crop is not GM doesn't mean that Genteically modification doesn't exist after the crop is havested, in the soil, in the air, added before packaging. If you have ever had MacDonalds or KFC you have eaten GM food. If soy/canola is in any of your food then you have eaten GM food and have this special gene donated by Monsanto.

Quote
EATING genetically modified (GM) food could give you cancer. That is the stark warning today from one of Scotland's leading experts in tissue diseases.

Dr Stanley Ewen, a consultant histopathologist at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, says that a cauliflower [mosaic] virus used in GM foods could increase the risk of stomach and colon cancers.
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/sewen1.php

Quote
“There is not one commercial GM crop with increased yield, drought-tolerance, salt-tolerance, enhanced nutrition, a nitrogen-fixing grain or other beneficial trait promised by GM companies for over 25 years. Yet GM crops also hinder the development of real solutions to hunger and climate change by restricting funding and farmer access to seeds and knowledge.

“We need new, smarter GM-free farming systems that feed people without wrecking the planet,” Mr Phelps concludes.
.............“GM is not a global industry. Just six countries dominate GM cropping, with the USA, Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada and China growing 95% of all GM crops. Though 20 other countries, including Australia, grow some GM they are just dabbling.

“The Cartagena Biosafety Protocol will be completed this year, giving countries more grounds for saying ‘no’ to GM crops. 156 countries are now members of the treaty but Australia is not among them.”
http://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2010/02/26/global-gm-crop-slowdown.html

Quote
Dr Chopra said the worst food safety offenders were Canada and the United States, but warns Australia and New Zealand are "not far behind".

He said those pushing GM crops were "scientists posing as environmentalists".

He said the greatest issue facing the developed and developing worlds were climate change and carbon emissions, while little attention was being paid to food safety and the security of the food supply.
http://fw.farmonline.com.au/news/state/agribusiness-and-general/general/gm-crops-compromising-australias-food-security-canadian-expert/1545498.aspx

presently farmers in Australia who were previously GM free have found their crop to be contaminated by genetically modified crop pollin. The farmers are allowed to harvest but not to sell their crop. Cross contamination is happening and they say that the world soy production is 96% GM, probably 100% taking into account cross pollination. The non GM farmers are being sued for having GM crops!!

Quote
And of course, the shoe can be on the other foot: in North America, biotech companies regularly take legal action against farmers. The most famous case involved Saskatchewan farmer, Percy Schmeizer, who was taken all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court by Monsanto, when GM canola was found in his fields.

My thoughts are, since soy products are GM and the modified gene is transfered to humans without our knowledge, without our concent, without knowing the short and long term effects and health risks it is a good case for a world class legal action.

But what surprises me is
Quote
Back in 1992, the FDA authority responsible for the decision of whether or not to label GM foods turned out to be a former attorney for none other than Monsanto. His name is Michael Taylor.

He went from being Monsanto’s attorney to serving as their vice president, and after that he became a policy maker at the FDA.

At this point in time, Taylor serves as the US food safety czar!
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/03/jeffrey-smith-interview.aspx
« Last Edit: 22/09/2010 05:33:38 by echochartruse »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

?How dangerous geneticaly modify food and why no news about it?
« Reply #49 on: 22/09/2010 00:56:34 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums